using chegh without an object
At st6, as soon as the dinner is over, and the klingons take their places on the transporter in order to return to Qo'noS wa', cheng is heard saying: DaH machegh I'd rather expect to hear {DaH wIchegh}. The {DaH machegh} gives me the impression of cheng saying, "now we return somewhere unspecified on something which is unspecified too" ~ Dana'an remain klingon
Am 18.02.2021 um 14:09 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
DaH machegh
I'd rather expect to hear {DaH wIchegh}. The {DaH machegh} gives me the impression of cheng saying, "now we return somewhere unspecified on something which is unspecified too"
Why? It's so clear what he's talking about. Like in English "We're returning". Just like any other verb without object: {DaH maSop} "We eat now", {DaH maSuv} "we're fighting", ... and I can say {DaH jIghItlh}. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/En/ST6
On 2/18/2021 8:22 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
lieven:
Why?
Because of the Ca'Non {lupDujHomDaq jIchegh} "I return on the shuttle".
The {DaH machegh} feels like the {lupDujHomDaq jIchegh} without the {lupDujHomDaq} part.
I understand as "now we return on.." and that's it.
*chegh* doesn't mean /return on./ *chegh* imparts a locative sense to its object. The object of *chegh* is the destination to which you are returning. Any other locative in the sentence refers to where the *chegh* is happening, not the destination. So if Chang's party were returning by shuttlecraft, he could say things like *DaH lupDujHomDaq may'Duj wIchegh*/We are returning to the battlecruiser on the shuttlecraft now./ *DaH lupDujHomDaq machegh*/We are returning on the shuttlecraft now./ *DaH may'Duj wIchegh*/We are returning to the battlecruiser now./ Or, in fact, he could say *DaH machegh*/We are returning now./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
In case it’s not clear from other replies, I think your misunderstanding is due to you thinking, in English as well as Klingon, that the “on” is attached to “chegh”, but “on” is a preposition — essentially the “Daq” in the canon phrase you mention. “lupDujHom” is “on the shuttle”; “jIchegh” is “I return”. Seems like you just split it differently than that... Russ
On Feb 18, 2021, at 7:22 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
lieven:
Why?
Because of the Ca'Non {lupDujHomDaq jIchegh} "I return on the shuttle".
The {DaH machegh} feels like the {lupDujHomDaq jIchegh} without the {lupDujHomDaq} part.
I understand as "now we return on.." and that's it.
~ Dana'an vIghro' tIQ vIjeylaHchugh.. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Here’s a different angle to explain it. Many verbs have direct objects. They also can have prepositional relationships to objects. Some prepositional relationships are explicit, meaning that you use an actual preposition with the object. Other prepositional relationships are implied in the verb. My classic example is, “The Moon orbits the Earth." The Moon also goes around the Earth. “Around” is a preposition explaining the “go” relationship between the Earth and the Moon. “Orbit” is a verb that has that relationship built into its link to its direct object. The Moon doesn’t go the Earth. It goes around it. While you can say the Moon orbits around the Earth, this is really poor English because the “Around” doesn’t tell you anything. It’s redundantly redundant. The “around” is implied by the word choice “orbit”. So, {chegh} is kind of like “orbit”. It has a direct object with an implied “to” prepositional relationship built into it. Meanwhile, the English word “return” does NOT have this prepositional relationship built in. I don’t return the ship. I return TO the ship. It would mean something extremely different were I to say I return the ship. So, when Okrand tries to give a gloss definition for {chegh}, he has to add the word “to” to the gloss. {chegh} doesn’t mean “return”. It means “return to”. Meanwhile, you could say the Moon orbits. You don’t have to say what it orbits, if context makes that clear. Similarly {jIchegh} means “I return.” Technically, it does mean “I return (to),” but since I’m not mentioning what the object is that I’m returning to, the better translation omits the word “to”. That’s why the gloss puts “to” in parentheses. It’s optional. You put the word “to” in your translation if there is an explicit object. You don’t put the word “to” in your English translation if there is no explicit direct object. In the scene in question, everybody knows where the speaker is returning to. He doesn’t need to mention it. He probably could have said either {wIchegh} or {machegh}. It doesn’t really matter. Neither expression is wrong. In this case, since there is no explicit direct object, either prefix works, because we know that you can’t return without somewhere to return to, so this is like choosing between “We’re returning to it,” vs. “We’re returning.” The meaning is the same. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Feb 18, 2021, at 10:59 AM, Russ Perry Jr <russperryjr@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In case it’s not clear from other replies, I think your misunderstanding is due to you thinking, in English as well as Klingon, that the “on” is attached to “chegh”, but “on” is a preposition — essentially the “Daq” in the canon phrase you mention. “lupDujHom” is “on the shuttle”; “jIchegh” is “I return”. Seems like you just split it differently than that...
Russ
On Feb 18, 2021, at 7:22 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
lieven:
Why?
Because of the Ca'Non {lupDujHomDaq jIchegh} "I return on the shuttle".
The {DaH machegh} feels like the {lupDujHomDaq jIchegh} without the {lupDujHomDaq} part.
I understand as "now we return on.." and that's it.
~ Dana'an vIghro' tIQ vIjeylaHchugh.. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 2/18/2021 12:41 PM, Will Martin wrote:
Many verbs have direct objects. They also can have prepositional relationships to objects. Some prepositional relationships are explicit, meaning that you use an actual preposition with the object. Other prepositional relationships are implied in the verb.
There's no such thing as an implied prepositional relationship. The word /preposition/ simply means /comes before./ In English, prepositions express the relationship a noun has with other things (not necessarily a verb — /the secret of the weapon/). A noun's relationship to other things can also be expressed in ways that don't use prepositions. This doesn't make them "implied prepositional relationships." This makes them relationships that aren't expressed with prepositions. I can express a relationship with a preposition: /I give the book to the officer./ I can express exactly the same relationship without a preposition: /I give the officer the book./ The relationship of the officer to the book or the giving or me is not prepositional, it's indirect object. (And I say phooey to anyone who claims the object of this preposition is not also an indirect object. Your grammar is antiquated.)
My classic example is, “The Moon orbits the Earth." The Moon also goes around the Earth. “Around” is a preposition explaining the “go” relationship between the Earth and the Moon.
“Orbit” is a verb that has that relationship built into its link to its direct object. The Moon doesn’t go the Earth. It goes around it. While you can say the Moon orbits around the Earth, this is really poor English because the “Around” doesn’t tell you anything. It’s redundantly redundant. The “around” is implied by the word choice “orbit”.
/The moon orbits around the Earth /is perfectly acceptable English, and you'll find plenty of astronomers saying /orbit around./
So, {chegh} is kind of like “orbit”. It has a direct object with an implied “to” prepositional relationship built into it. Meanwhile, the English word “return” does NOT have this prepositional relationship built in. I don’t return the ship. I return TO the ship. It would mean something extremely different were I to say I return the ship.
If you want to get your terminology right, say that *chegh* has a /locative/ sense built into it. It imparts a locative meaning to its object. TKD explains this phenomenon to us.
So, when Okrand tries to give a gloss definition for {chegh}, he has to add the word “to” to the gloss. {chegh} doesn’t mean “return”. It means “return to”.
Okrand glossed *chegh* with "return." When he was asked about it later, he posted a message that "*chegh* 'return' means 'return to a place.'" He has never glossed it "return (to)"; that was done by someone else (possibly yourself, this gloss comes from the KLI's new words list). The other person's gloss is correct, but Okrand is often not so precise as you're suggesting. The inherent locative meaning of certain verbs is often not expressed in Okrand's glosses, and we have to infer or discover them. At the time we heard Chang say *DaH machegh,* we did not have any evidence that *chegh* could take the destination returned to as its object.
Meanwhile, you could say the Moon orbits. You don’t have to say what it orbits, if context makes that clear.
Similarly {jIchegh} means “I return.” Technically, it does mean “I return (to),” but since I’m not mentioning what the object is that I’m returning to, the better translation omits the word “to”. That’s why the gloss puts “to” in parentheses. It’s optional.
In general, Okrand does not put words in parentheses in his glosses because they're optional to the translation or to help the translator choose the best translation; he does so to distinguish different meanings of a word.
You put the word “to” in your translation if there is an explicit object. You don’t put the word “to” in your English translation if there is no explicit direct object.
If appropriate. *juH vIchegh*/I return home./ *naDev chegh HoD*/The captain returns here./
In the scene in question, everybody knows where the speaker is returning to. He doesn’t need to mention it. He probably could have said either {wIchegh} or {machegh}.
*wIchegh*/We return to it/ makes as little sense in the Klingon in this context as it does in the English. Sure, you can work out what he means, but it's not how you'd say it. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Just to be clear: I never put anything in the New Words List without citing the source. That’s the whole point of the list — to be an index to words that are listed in official sources. The sources are scattered, but the New Words List points to all of them from one place. The New Words List is never the official source of any Klingon word. I just checked my own database, which reflects the New Words List as it existed when I maintained it. It lists {chegh} as “return”, not “return (to)” with the source being TKD. Unless there’s a difference between the E->K / K->E sides of TKD or some later source appends or changes the definition, TKD words were not placed in the New Words List. I did list words that exist in both TKD and the Addendum, since people looking up a word in TKD might think they are done and not double check the Addendum, never learning about the expanded definition. TKD is full of OLD words, not NEW words, hence the title New Words List. I’m the guy who came up with that title, and I did it for a reason. This suggests that I’m not the person who put {chegh} in the New Words List. So, looking at the New Words List, the source is listed as NEWS. The “Works cited” list at the bottom of the page doesn’t have a listing for NEWS, so I can’t tell you who put this word on the list or what work it cites. I’m as clueless as you on this. As for “prepositional relationships”, I’m not a professional linguist. I don’t even play one on TV. I’m an amateur enthusiast. I use the best terms I know. You are probably right. I should be talking about locatives. I was simply trying to explain that nouns have a lot of different roles in a sentence. While there’s an obvious difference between a verb’s direct object and the object of a preposition in terms of grammar, there is no global rule that dictates whether a specific verb can use a specific noun as its direct object, or if that noun would require a preposition (in English) or a Type 5 noun suffix (in Klingon). The Moon goes around the Earth. The Moon orbits the Earth. The Moon orbits around the Earth. These all mean exactly the same thing. There is not so much as a shade of meaning difference among them. The verb “go” requires the preposition. Omitting it completely changes the meaning of the sentence. The verb “orbit” doesn’t require the preposition. {chegh} is apparently something akin to the English “orbit”, while its gloss “return” is not. Most verbs don’t have a location as the direct object. {chegh} does. The English word “return” is a lot more complicated. In particular, without canon to clarify, the gloss is insufficient to differentiate between “I return to the ship” and “I return a book to the library”. More accurately, the former could also be stated as “I return myself to the ship” and the latter could be stated as “I cause the book to return to the library.” That’s a common feature of many verbs in English. It exists in Klingon, but so far as we know, it’s more common to be like {vIH} where the subject is always the object in motion, unless we add the suffix {-moH}, where we split the roles of the noun causing the motion and the noun in motion. Without {-moH}, they are one and the same. But we have other Klingon verbs where the one causing the motion is always the subject of the verb and we have to use {-‘egh} to indicate that the one causing the action of the verb is also the one performing the action. And the gloss doesn’t always indicate which of these three cases are true: 1. The one performing the action is subject and we use {-moH} to refer to the one causing the action to occur. 2. The one causing the action is subject and we use {-‘egh} to refer to the one performing the action to be the same one who is causing it. 3. We don’t know if it’s case 1 or 2 or if either one is fine. Let context decide. Myself, being foolish enough to wish that Klingon could be a language in which things can be said more clearly than in English, I’ve always favored definitions that made it clear which of the three cases apply to each verb, but it’s a fool’s goal. I’d love for case 3 to be forbidden, but if wishes were fishes… It’s not my language. I just get to use it. Happiness is easier to achieve if I’m content with just that. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Feb 18, 2021, at 1:44 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 2/18/2021 12:41 PM, Will Martin wrote:
Many verbs have direct objects. They also can have prepositional relationships to objects. Some prepositional relationships are explicit, meaning that you use an actual preposition with the object. Other prepositional relationships are implied in the verb. There's no such thing as an implied prepositional relationship. The word preposition simply means comes before. In English, prepositions express the relationship a noun has with other things (not necessarily a verb — the secret of the weapon). A noun's relationship to other things can also be expressed in ways that don't use prepositions. This doesn't make them "implied prepositional relationships." This makes them relationships that aren't expressed with prepositions.
I can express a relationship with a preposition: I give the book to the officer. I can express exactly the same relationship without a preposition: I give the officer the book. The relationship of the officer to the book or the giving or me is not prepositional, it's indirect object. (And I say phooey to anyone who claims the object of this preposition is not also an indirect object. Your grammar is antiquated.)
My classic example is, “The Moon orbits the Earth." The Moon also goes around the Earth. “Around” is a preposition explaining the “go” relationship between the Earth and the Moon.
“Orbit” is a verb that has that relationship built into its link to its direct object. The Moon doesn’t go the Earth. It goes around it. While you can say the Moon orbits around the Earth, this is really poor English because the “Around” doesn’t tell you anything. It’s redundantly redundant. The “around” is implied by the word choice “orbit”. The moon orbits around the Earth is perfectly acceptable English, and you'll find plenty of astronomers saying orbit around.
So, {chegh} is kind of like “orbit”. It has a direct object with an implied “to” prepositional relationship built into it. Meanwhile, the English word “return” does NOT have this prepositional relationship built in. I don’t return the ship. I return TO the ship. It would mean something extremely different were I to say I return the ship. If you want to get your terminology right, say that chegh has a locative sense built into it. It imparts a locative meaning to its object. TKD explains this phenomenon to us.
So, when Okrand tries to give a gloss definition for {chegh}, he has to add the word “to” to the gloss. {chegh} doesn’t mean “return”. It means “return to”. Okrand glossed chegh with "return." When he was asked about it later, he posted a message that "chegh 'return' means 'return to a place.'" He has never glossed it "return (to)"; that was done by someone else (possibly yourself, this gloss comes from the KLI's new words list). The other person's gloss is correct, but Okrand is often not so precise as you're suggesting.
The inherent locative meaning of certain verbs is often not expressed in Okrand's glosses, and we have to infer or discover them. At the time we heard Chang say DaH machegh, we did not have any evidence that chegh could take the destination returned to as its object.
Meanwhile, you could say the Moon orbits. You don’t have to say what it orbits, if context makes that clear.
Similarly {jIchegh} means “I return.” Technically, it does mean “I return (to),” but since I’m not mentioning what the object is that I’m returning to, the better translation omits the word “to”. That’s why the gloss puts “to” in parentheses. It’s optional. In general, Okrand does not put words in parentheses in his glosses because they're optional to the translation or to help the translator choose the best translation; he does so to distinguish different meanings of a word.
You put the word “to” in your translation if there is an explicit object. You don’t put the word “to” in your English translation if there is no explicit direct object. If appropriate. juH vIchegh I return home. naDev chegh HoD The captain returns here.
In the scene in question, everybody knows where the speaker is returning to. He doesn’t need to mention it. He probably could have said either {wIchegh} or {machegh}. wIchegh We return to it makes as little sense in the Klingon in this context as it does in the English. Sure, you can work out what he means, but it's not how you'd say it.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 2/18/2021 3:25 PM, Will Martin wrote:
So, looking at the New Words List, the source is listed as NEWS. The “Works cited” list at the bottom of the page doesn’t have a listing for NEWS, so I can’t tell you who put this word on the list or what work it cites. I’m as clueless as you on this.
It cites this newsgroup post: klingonska.org/canon/1999-07-19b-email.txt <http://klingonska.org/canon/1999-07-19b-email.txt>
The Moon goes around the Earth.
The Moon orbits the Earth.
The Moon orbits around the Earth.
These all mean exactly the same thing. There is not so much as a shade of meaning difference among them.
Sure there is. /Orbit/ (and /orbit around/) generally refers to an elliptical or circular path, usually but not exclusively caused by gravitational attraction. The word can be used to talk about, say, walking around someone, but it usually isn't. /Go around,/ on the other hand, doesn't imply an ellipse, circle, or gravity. It is true that all three of those sentences can refer to the same state, but it is /not/ true that there is no semantic difference between them. The sentence with /goes around/ does not by itself express the concept of an elliptical path caused by gravity; the other two do. Only context tells you that in the first sentence. /The dog goes around the Earth. The dog orbits the Earth. The dog orbits around the Earth./ In the first sentence, we might be talking about a dog that sails in a ship around the planet. Or we might be talking about a dogstronaut. The other two sentences are almost certainly talking about a dogstronaut.
Myself, being foolish enough to wish that Klingon could be a language in which things can be said more clearly than in English, I’ve always favored definitions that made it clear which of the three cases apply to each verb, but it’s a fool’s goal. I’d love for case 3 to be forbidden, but if wishes were fishes…
That was obviously never a design goal of Klingon, nor do I see any reason anyone would think of it as something to strive for. Klingon is, in general, more vague than English. Its vocabulary is much smaller, even with all the additions in recent years, and not, I think, simply because we haven't discovered all the words yet. English is an extraordinarily large language, having borrowed from many sources, and I don't see any reason to think that Klingon has done this. Klingon's syntax is far more strict and limited than English's, making it less expressive. Klingon is prone to dropping words, leaving behind sentences that only make sense in context. Klingon grammarians themselves only define three parts of speech, giving the last the telling name of /leftovers. /Expecting perfectly glossed words, complete with descriptions of its arguments? No, the strength of Klingon is not its clarity, it is its punch. It is brisk. It doesn't delve into great detail. It is utilitarian. It is not a language of precise rules; it is a language of "good enough." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 at 18:41, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
So, when Okrand tries to give a gloss definition for {chegh}, he has to add the word “to” to the gloss. {chegh} doesn’t mean “return”. It means “return to”.
{chegh} is listed as just "return" in TKD (in both K-E and E-K sides), and also glossed as just "return" in the body of KGT. The definition "return (to)" in the KLI new words list was obviously added to distinguish it from {tatlh} "return (something)" when that word was revealed, presumably by whomever was the maintainer of the list at the time. The "(to)" is there to distinguish the meaning of "return" where the subject is going back to a previous location (which is {chegh}), vs. "return" where the subject is putting the object back to where something belongs (which is {tatlh}). -- De'vID
More examples: wa'leS jIchegh Tomorrow I will return. KGT nIteb chegh molor ngIq ghoqwI' One by one Molor's scouts return PB naDevvo' chegh pagh [published translation not available] (PB) lojmItDaj veghta'DI' jubbe'wI' yInqa'meH chegh 'e' botnIS qotar Still, Kotar cannot let a mortal Pass his gates and return alive [PB, p.122-23] cheghDI' bangwI' jItIw [translation not provided] (qepHom 2017 p.13) DaH Suto'vo'qor vIjaH 'ach 'opleS jIchegh 'e' vIlay' ["I go now to StoVoKor, but I promise to come back one day."] (NON-CANON: DSC, motto on *darsek* coin quoting Kahless) --Voragh -----------------------------------Original Message----------------------------------- From: Lieven L. Litaer Am 18.02.2021 um 14:09 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
DaH machegh
I'd rather expect to hear {DaH wIchegh}. The {DaH machegh} gives me the impression of cheng saying, "now we return somewhere unspecified on something which is unspecified too"
Why? It's so clear what he's talking about. Like in English "We're returning". Just like any other verb without object: {DaH maSop} "We eat now", {DaH maSuv} "we're fighting", ... and I can say {DaH jIghItlh}.
On 2/18/2021 8:09 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
At st6, as soon as the dinner is over, and the klingons take their places on the transporter in order to return to Qo'noS wa', cheng is heard saying:
DaH machegh
I'd rather expect to hear {DaH wIchegh}. The {DaH machegh} gives me the impression of cheng saying, "now we return somewhere unspecified on something which is unspecified too"
*chegh* is one of those verbs whose object is automatically given a locative sense. The object of *chegh* is the destination to which you are returning. If you do not include an object, the destination to which you are returning is considered to be general or vague. Let's remember that *DaH*/now/ is an adverbial, not a noun, and is not the object of this sentence. Let's remove it to avoid confusion. *wIchegh* means /we return to him/her/it./ This is clearly not what *cheng Sa'* means to say: what /it/ does he mean? On the other hand, *machegh*/we return (to someplace unspecified)/ is exactly what he means: the person at the other end of his communicator knows exactly what he means, so he doesn't bother to say where they're returning to. He doesn't need to. He could say *Duj wIchegh,* but his transporter operator already knows that. When Kirk says /beam us up,/ he doesn't have to say /beam us up to the ship,/ does he? No. Remember also that the verb imparts a locative sense to the object; the locative isn't dangling off the verb into space. If there's no object, there's no locative.*chegh* without an object means /return./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (7)
-
De'vID -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Russ Perry Jr -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin